BENNY K.T. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is stated that as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 6.3.2013 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21637 of 2012 filed by the petitioner herein person, this Court had directed the 4th respondent herein (Additional Tahsildar) to consider the request of the petitioner for change of the entry in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). Since the direction in Ext.P1 judgment was not complied with, the petitioner was constrained to initiate contempt of court proceedings before this Court and during the pendency of the said contempt of court proceedings, the 4th respondent herein had passed Ext.P2 proceedings dated 29.11.2013, wherein it was ordered to effect changes in the BTR but subject to the result of W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 pending before the Division Bench of this Court. It may be noted that W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 was instituted by the State Authorities to impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge at Ext.P1 herein. That thereafter the petitioner had submitted an application for survey and demarcation and as the said request was not considered by the respondents, citing the ground of pendency of W.A. No. 1274 of 2013, the petitioner was again constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 19964 of 2014. This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 20.8.2014 had finally disposed of W.A.No. 19964 of 2014 by holding that pendency of W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 will not stand in the way of the statutory authorities from exercising the statutory powers conferred under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act so as to consider Ext.P10 therein (application dated 7.7.2014). Accordingly this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment had directed the 4th respondent therein/respondent No. 3 herein (Tahsildar), to take necessary steps on Ext.P10 application therein within a period of three months. In view of that remit, this Court had also set aside the impugned order of rejection which was contained in that Ext.P8 therein and had also made it clear that any survey conducted will be subject to the decision in W.A. No. 1274 of 2013. It appears that the petitioner contended that the very same mistake regarding the entry in the BTR was repeated even after the re.survey and thereupon he had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 20600 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 27.8.2014 by holding that the petitioner's remedy is to prefer a revision under Section 13A of the Survey and Boundaries Act before the District Collector relating to the notification which had described the property as 'Government Land' and the District Collector was directed to dispose of the revision within two months on his submission. Alleging noncompliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner had again set in motion contempt proceedings and during the pendency of those proceedings, the 4th respondent-Additional Tahsildar had issued Ext.P7 proceedings dated 24.1.2015 wherein it was ordered that subject to the final result of W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 pending on the file of the Division Bench of this Court, it has been ordered to make necessary corrections in the BTR in respect of the re.survey. According to the petitioner, even though the entry in the BTR for the re.survey of the property was altered in the Village Office records, such alteration was not made in the records maintained at the Taluk Level and District Level. Now the petitioner would also state that there has been variation in the extent of his land in the revenue records and that therefore he had submitted Ext.P8(10) application dated July, 2016 (given on page No. 41 of the paper book of this W.P.(C)) before the Survey Superintendent, Thrissur District seeking sub division of the property. That in response thereof the Surveyor had conducted sub division of the property of the petitioner as per Ext.P8(1)-(3) dated 06.11.2017 issued by the Surveyor (produced at page Nos.32 to 34 of this W.P.(C)) and had forwarded the same for further action to the 4th respondent-Additional Tahsildar. The grievance of the petitioner is that no further action has been taken by the 4th respondent to effect sub division of the property, again citing the ground of pendency of W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 filed against Ext.P1 judgment. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:-

(2.) Heard Sri. A.X. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is also to be noted that, as stated herein above the State Authorities concerned had preferred W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 so as to impugn Ext.P1 judgment dated 06.03.2013 in W.P. (C) No. 21637 of 2012. The Division Bench of this Court had initially disposed of W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 09.03.2015 holding that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error and that the Writ Appeal fails. The Division Bench had also noted in the concluding paragraph of Ext.P3 judgment that by the time the Division Bench had rendered statement on 09.03.2015, the revenue officials concerned had already made modifications in the BTR and mutation was so effected, in compliance with Ext.P1 judgment and hence this Division Bench of this Court had also observed in Ext.P3 judgment that the writ appeal has become infructuous with the passage of the time. Being aggrieved by Ext.P3 judgment, the State had preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Apex Court. The Apex Court had disposed of the said SLP as per Ext.P4 order/judgment dated 06.11.2015 holding that the observation of the Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment that the main matter in the appeal had become infructuous may be right and that the issue as to whether correction could be made in the BTR is to be decided on merits and in that view of the matter the Apex Court had granted liberty to the appellant/State to prefer a review petition before the Division Bench so as to review of Ext.P3 judgment and it was also directed that such a review petition if so filed is to be entertained on merits. Later the Division Bench of this Court had passed order dated 26.2.2016 allowing R.P. No. 1149 of 2015 preferred by the State in W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 whereby it was ordered that the impugned Division Bench judgment dated 09.03.2015 in W.A. No. 1274 of 2013 (produced as Ext.P3 herein) will stand recalled so as to rehear that writ appeal on merits.